Judgment not complying with the provisions can not be maintained.

Heard both sides. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge of Tindivanam dated 310. 1989 in A.S.76 of 1987 which was preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.489 of 1982, dated 30.4.1987 on the file of learned District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.

.2. The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.489 of 1982 on the file District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, against the appellant’s mother Veeralakshmi Ammal who died pending the suit stating that he is the absolute owner of the property by purchase under the sale deed dated 26. 1962, that though the sale deed is standing in the name of the mother of the appellant, she was only a benamidhar for his benefit. Hence the appellant disputed the title of the first respondent and the suit was necessistated. The appellant resisted the suit contending that the suit properties were purchased by his mother out of the fund provided by his father, that the respondent who is none other than the appellant’s sister’s husband was cultivating the land on their behalf for some years and taking advantage of the same, he is trying to set up title with himself.

3. The trial court held that the case of benami set up by the first respondent is not true and that the appellant’s mother is the absolute owner of the suit property and in this view, dismissed the suit.

4. The lower appellate court though concurred with the finding of the trial court that the case of benami set up by the plaintiff/respondent is not true, however, remanded the matter to the trial court with a direction to give a finding on the plea of adverse possession. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree, the appellant has filed the above civil miscellaneous appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. A.K.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.N. Muthu-kumaran learned counsel for the contesting party.

6. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the first appellate court has failed to appreciate the scope of the suit which was filed for declaration of plaintiff’s title to the suit properties and for a permanent injunction stating that the plaintiff had purchased the properties though the sale deed stands in the name of the first defendant benami for his benefit.

7. It is the definite case of the first respondent-plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit property as absolute owner thereof as per the purchase under Ex.B-1 sale deed and not on the basis of adverse possession.

.8. As already seen, the trail court has considered the evidence of the parties regarding adverse possession and held that the first respondent is not in possession of the suit properties. It is contended on behalf of the first respondent-plaintiff that the first respondent-plaintiff is entitled to plead adverse possession since according to him, he is in possession of the property for more than 12 years without any interruption from any

.quarters and therefore, he is entitled to claim adverse possession. It is also contended by Mr. M.N.Muthukumaran learned counsel for the respondents that the plea is not an inconsistent one as argued by learned counsel for the appellant, but is an alternate plea.

9. I have perused the judgment of the trial court. Though it is contended by the first respondent herein that he has perfected his title by adverse possession, the trial court has not framed any issue regarding adverse possession. However, the lower appellate court has framed the only point for determination as to whether the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession.

10. O.41, Rule 31 of C.P.C. reads thus:

"31. Contents, date and signature of judgment: -

The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state.

.(a) the points for determination;

.(b) the decision thereon;

.(c) the reasons for the decision; and

.(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled; and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed